Articles of Interest

Promoting Mental Health in the RCMP

By Josh Brull, Legal Counsel
September 2008

Introduction

Working for the RCMP is psychologically demanding. Many members put in long shifts and significant amounts of overtime. They are responsible for protecting lives. They are also regularly exposed to danger and distress. Officers who make split-second, life or death decisions often have to live with difficult consequences. Although most do their jobs with honesty, diligence and goodwill, they must sometimes endure negative media images of police. Then, when the shift is over, members face the everyday stressors of life outside the job.

Increased attention is being paid to mental health issues within the RCMP. In a 2006 report, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology observed that police stress can lead to mental health problems such as depression, burnout and suicide.¹ In 2007, the Brown Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP (Brown Task Force) recommended that the Force ensure that "member and employee health and wellness be an essential consideration in policy and operational decisions at all levels".²

The Committee has worked, and continues to work, to promote mental health in the Force. This paper highlights some of the Committee's efforts. It specifically considers the effects that mental health issues can have in grievances involving isolated posts, suspensions without pay, harassment, accommodation and medical discharge. It also examines the significance of mental health matters in the disciplinary as well as the discharge and demotion processes.

Isolated Posts

The Force provides policing services all over Canada, including numerous remote locations that are referred to as "isolated posts". Operating in an isolated post can be stressful. Climates are usually harsh. Ordinary goods and services are often hard to find. Professional support can be minimal. One might also be secluded from friends and family. In G-061, the Committee reviewed the Force's decision to deny a Grievor's travel claim. The Grievor and his wife lived at an isolated post. When the Grievor's wife travelled to a distant city to have major surgery, he accompanied her to provide moral support. The grievance turned on the interpretation of a policy that entitled members to various expenses when it was "necessary" for them to accompany dependents during medical-related travel. The Force decided that it was unnecessary for the Grievor to escort his wife. It appeared to base its decision on a belief that she did not need physical help. The Committee was unconvinced. It found that the scope of the policy was broad enough to cover moral support in certain cases. It recommended that the Commissioner revisit the matter. The Commissioner denied the grievance. He held that the Grievor's desire to morally support his wife did not make his presence necessary.

In G-269, similar facts led to a different result. The Grievor and her husband were members at an isolated post. When the Grievor travelled to a distant city to give birth, her husband joined her to lend moral support. The Force denied his travel claim on the ground that there was no medical requirement for him to accompany the Grievor. The Committee saw things differently. It observed that although the relevant government directive did not provide for the payment of travel expenses to those who left isolated posts to attend the births of their children, other departments had applied it that way. The Committee found that the Force should apply the directive in a way that reflected the broader government application. It therefore recommended that the Force reimburse the husband's justifiable travel expenses. The Commissioner agreed.

The Committee is pleased that concerns about the well-being of members at isolated posts are gaining more recognition. The Brown Task Force recently recommended that: "in respect of...isolated postings, we urge the Force to work with the Treasury Board to make sure that treatment of members who are prepared to serve in these areas is fair and appropriate". The Force subsequently expressed a commitment to attracting members to isolated posts, and to taking innovative steps to look after them and their families while they are there.³

Suspension Without Pay (SWOP)

Regulation provides that the Force shall stop paying suspended members if they were "clearly involved" in committing certain offences that are so "outrageous" as to significantly affect their proper performance of duties. The Committee has noted that SWOPs may be very difficult for members, even if they are later cleared of any wrongdoing. Issues such as depression, substance abuse, family tensions and financial hardship can ensue.⁴ Given the mental health implications that can arise in relation to SWOP orders, the Committee has reinforced the importance of ensuring that the above threshold test is met before such orders are issued.

In G-353, the Committee found that the Force should not have issued a SWOP order against a Grievor who was charged with 13 Criminal Code offences including transferring ammunition without authority and possessing prohibited devices without a licence. The Committee noted that it was unclear if the Grievor was "clearly involved" in "outrageous conduct" at the time the order was issued. It also observed that he had valid explanations that had not been weighed. The Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed. The Commissioner agreed.

In G-359, the Committee determined that the Force should not have issued a SWOP order against a Grievor who allegedly stole a one hundred dollar bill. In the Committee's view, the mere fact that the Grievor possessed the bill did not prove that he was "clearly involved" in the offence of taking it without lawful justification. It also found that there were conflicting, plausible versions of what actually happened, and that some of the relevant facts lacked clarity. The Committee therefore recommended that the grievance be allowed. The Commissioner agreed.

The Committee has also reviewed a case where poor mental health explained the misconduct which led to a SWOP. In G-177, the Force issued a SWOP order against a Grievor who was accused of offences under the Criminal Code and the Customs Act. A psychological report showed that, at the time of his transgressions, the Grievor suffered from a dissociative disorder, and possible psychotic delusions, which prevented him from making logical decisions. The Committee found that the Force had to take into account the Grievor's mental health. It noted that although the Grievor's misconduct was serious, his psychological condition had a mitigating effect such that it was appropriate for the Force to pay him during his suspension. The Commissioner agreed. He ordered the reimbursement of the Grievor's pay.

Harassment

The Treasury Board Policy on Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace describes workplace harassment as "any improper conduct by an individual, that is directed at and offensive to another person or persons in the workplace, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm".

The psychological effects of exposure to workplace harassment can be substantial. Harassment can cause, among other things, tremendous stress, difficulties concentrating and making decisions, lost confidence, isolation, panic, anxiety disorders, depression and an inability to work. It can also lead to a reduction in workforce morale, loyalty and dedication.

The Committee has noticed a rise in harassment grievances referred to it over the past several years.⁵ It has taken steps to help the Force achieve its goal of providing a harassment-free workplace.

For example, the Committee has found, and the Commissioner has agreed, that under policy, the Force must investigate every harassment complaint, except where it is inconceivable that a full investigation would lead to a conclusion that harassment occurred (G-251, G-362, G-420).

The Committee has also clarified that it does not matter if an alleged harasser did not mean to harass someone. It explained that the Force must assess purported harassment on the basis of whether or not it amounted to improper conduct that was offensive to a complainant, and which the accused harasser should have known would be unwelcome (G-235, G-253).

The Committee further understands that a harassment allegation may have serious effects on an alleged harasser's mental health. Fair and transparent procedures can reduce those effects. In G-416, the Committee found that the Force must give alleged harassers enough detail about the allegations to allow them to properly respond. It found that, ideally, the Force should provide copies of witness statements and the draft investigation report. The Committee cautioned that a failure to provide adequate information may result in a decision arising out of a harassment investigation being overturned. The Commissioner has not yet decided this matter.

Accommodation and Medical Discharge

Where possible, the Force must accommodate members whose mental health conditions diminish their abilities to perform police duties. In this regard, the Committee has helped the Force to align its accommodation policies with the principles of Canadian human rights law.

In G-266 and G-267, the Committee considered the issue of medical discharge and the 'bona fide occupational requirement' (BFOR). It pointed out that a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision had changed the test for establishing a BFOR. The new test imposed a higher standard on the duty to accommodate by requiring the Force to prove that it would face undue hardship if it had to accommodate a disabled member's needs. The Committee found that the Force's process for accommodating disabled members fell short of that standard. The Commissioner agreed with the Committee. As a result, he took steps to develop a new policy which addressed the proper accommodation of members with disabilities.

The new policy recognizes the significant hardships that mental disabilities can inflict upon members. For example, it explains that when the Force attempts to identify employment options for an affected member, it should "give preference to the [option] which provides the member dignity, autonomy, privacy, integration in the workplace, minimizes discomfort or inconvenience, and promptly addresses the member's needs".⁶

Disciplinary, Discharge and Demotion Processes

Members who are accused of wrongdoing, or who are subject to discharge or demotion proceedings, may have suffered from various mental health conditions during the time of their alleged misconduct or poor performance. They occasionally submit psychological evidence to explain their actions and/or raise doubts about the wilfulness of their conduct. Mental health issues can be important, and sometimes pivotal factors in these cases.

In D-014, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner allow the appeal of a Member who had been ordered to resign following a shoplifting incident. The Committee relied, in part, on two psychological assessments which concluded that the Member did not intend to shoplift, and that his actions were related to the stress that he faced at the time of the misconduct. Specifically, over a short period of time, the Member had suffered five major operations, a traffic accident, a bankruptcy, tornado-induced home damage, the death of a parent, the elimination of his position and the effects of caring for an alcoholdependent spouse. The Commissioner accepted the Committee's analysis. He acknowledged that anyone might engage in unusual misconduct if placed under enough stress, and that police officers must be excused when they are so unfortunate as to fall into extreme circumstances.

In D-099, the Committee considered the appeal of a Member who was ordered to resign for neglecting his duties. The Member was under an inordinate amount of strain at the time of his transgressions. His stressors included the birth of a child, the death of a parent, various family illnesses and a trial involving a police vehicle accident. An expert concluded that those stressors caused the Member to be overwhelmed, disorganized and prone to poor judgment. The Committee relied on that evidence, in part, in recommending that the Commissioner find that some of the allegations against the Member were not established. It also recommended that the Member's appeal on sanction be allowed, finding that not enough weight had been placed on the evidence that the Member was under extraordinary stress at the time of the misconduct. Although the Commissioner found that most of the allegations had been established, he agreed that a sanction less than dismissal should be imposed. He held that the many stressors in the Member's life were given insufficient weight, and that there was reason to believe that the Member could be rehabilitated. He therefore imposed a lesser sanction.

The Committee has also pointed out that mental health factors such as depression, toxic work environments and serious family problems should be taken into account when determining whether or not a member should be discharged or demoted (R-001, R-002).

Conclusion

The promotion of mental health in the RCMP is beneficial not only to members and the Force, but to all Canadians. The Committee will continue to work hard to offer useful findings and recommendations on laws and policies concerning mental health issues. Put simply, a healthy RCMP is an effective RCMP. The Committee remains dedicated to fostering both.

(The author wishes to thank Melvin Chuck and Martin Griffin for their valuable contributions.)

Endnotes

1. Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada; available at the Parliament of Canada's website.

2. This report is available on Public Safety Canada's website.

3. March 2008 interview with A/Commr. Keith Clark, by CBC Reporter Alison Crawford; available on the RCMP's website.

4. Suspensions - A Balanced View (1988); available on the Committee's website.

5. See the Committee's 2007-2008 Annual Report, at p.17; available on Committee's website.

6. See RCMP Administrative Manual, ch.II.37, para. G.6.e.